So You Want Jobs!!

[Vast LWC]

We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy, often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion, according to a 2008 study by Amtrak’s inspector general. Rail ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.

High Speed Rail Going Nowhere Fast - CBS News

8 billion for this fallacy known as high speed rail is meaningless and what it will create is a new program that is totally dependant on the Govt. for it's existance. If you wish to have high speed rail like Europe then you will have to fund it like them as well. As for obsolete weapons systems, the F-22 is the ONLY 5th generation fighter aircraft in active duty service. In fact if it were so obsolete then why would China be rapidly developing a counter to it, and Russia as well?

MOSCOW - Russia on Jan. 29 unveiled a new fighter aircraft touted as a rival of the U.S. F-22 stealth jet and developed amid the highest secrecy as part of a plan to modernize the armed forces.
Russia Unveils Fighter Seen as Rival to F-22 - Defense News

OK, seriously...

High speed rail system vs planes we have no use for?

Hmm, I know which one I would choose.

LOL.

Hey, in a related topic, anybody get a load of that +5.7% GDP?

HOLY COW, that's good news

 

[Oldandtired]

First these companies that make things such as the F-22 are already private companies who happen to have a defense division. Take Boeing for example, Boeing makes commerical aircraft and the commerical aircraft market is way down at the moment due to world economic conditions and has already led to layoffs in that sector. Now when the Govt. first says. we plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs then at the same time cancel a program like the F-22 they are NOT laying off Govt. workers they are laying of in many cases Union and non Union private industry workers who supply commercial and defense needs for these companies. Take NASA for example, when you set out based on what IMHO is flawed logic to cancel the Constellation program it effects not only those working in commercial space flight industry but all the associated industries that support it. To just make the statement, well lets just convert them to non-defense, does not take into consideration that a lot of these companies are ALREADY engaged in non-defense work. This notion that "green jobs" will save us is nonsense especially when you consider that EVERY single industry that supports alternative energy from batteries to solar to wind is largely produced offshore and will continue to be produced there.

I do find it interesting that you support NASA which doesn't have much of a return on investment. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY support Nasa but YOUR position just seems curious to me.

NASA has private industry vendors by the thousands.
I see NASA as a government program that allows private industry a chance to capitalize on their needs.

 

[Vast LWC]

How about we take that effort we would have put into the F-22's and put into some real space program action?

We found water on the moon, that presents so much of an opportunity.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Not me. I don't want a job. Don't confuse me with those other guys. I'm retired and enjoying every minute of it...

 

[American Horse]

A roads life is effected by the use it recieves.

You can pretend this is not true but hell you refuse facts all day long from what I see.

And we target federal and state gasoline taxes for the repair, maintenance, expansion to offset useage of tired roads. If politicians had the honesty to see that those funds went to those expenditures instead of their earmark bribes we'd be that much better off.

One nice thing about highways is when they aren't being used costs due to useage go down rather than up. HSR will run whether there are paying customers or not, empty or not. To attract customers it has to keep on reliably running.

How about taking a look at the cost effectiveness of HSR: "Is President Obama’s vision of hyper-fast trains racing through America a sound transportation policy or a costly boondoggle? Last week, I began a four-part series on the costs and benefits of high-speed rail. The readers of last week’s post seemed particularly eager to get to traffic congestion and the environment, but space constraints compel me to push these off until next week. Today I will get mired in the sometimes dull arcana of rail costs and direct benefits to users.

I’m going to frame the discussion around an imaginary 240-mile link between Dallas and Houston, but the basic formula for direct costs and benefit is general:
Number of Riders times (Benefit per Rider minus Variable Costs per Rider) minus Fixed Costs.

I’m simplifying, but a formula needs to be simple if interested parties can seriously debate the numbers, and the only way that America is going to get to the right answer on public investments is if numbers trump rhetoric. I will plug illustrative figures into the formula, but not only am I well aware that every number here is debatable, I am hoping for just that debate.

<SNIP 685 WORDS>

....1.5 million trips times $68 a trip means $102 million for benefits minus operating costs. Annual capital costs came in $648 million, more than six times that amount. If you think that the right number is three million trips, then the benefits rise to $200 million, and the ratio between the per rider net benefits and costs drops to one-to-three. This is the cruel arithmetic faced by people, like myself, who would love to be pro-rail. One hint for train lovers who would like to make this comparison look better: make a compelling case that the interest rate should be much lower, as nothing else makes nearly as much difference. Also keep in mind that I haven&#8217;t brought in the environment or congestion...."

Edward L. Glaeser is an economics professor at Harvard.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

A roads life is effected by the use it recieves.

You can pretend this is not true but hell you refuse facts all day long from what I see.

And we target federal and state gasoline taxes for the repair, maintenance, expansion to offset useage of tired roads. If politicians had the honesty to see that those funds went to those expenditures instead of their earmark bribes we'd be that much better off.

One nice thing about highways is when they aren't being used costs due to useage go down rather than up. HSR will run whether there are paying customers or not, empty or not. To attract customers it has to keep on reliably running.

How about taking a look at the cost effectiveness of HSR: "Is President Obama’s vision of hyper-fast trains racing through America a sound transportation policy or a costly boondoggle? Last week, I began a four-part series on the costs and benefits of high-speed rail. The readers of last week’s post seemed particularly eager to get to traffic congestion and the environment, but space constraints compel me to push these off until next week. Today I will get mired in the sometimes dull arcana of rail costs and direct benefits to users.

I’m going to frame the discussion around an imaginary 240-mile link between Dallas and Houston, but the basic formula for direct costs and benefit is general:
Number of Riders times (Benefit per Rider minus Variable Costs per Rider) minus Fixed Costs.

I’m simplifying, but a formula needs to be simple if interested parties can seriously debate the numbers, and the only way that America is going to get to the right answer on public investments is if numbers trump rhetoric. I will plug illustrative figures into the formula, but not only am I well aware that every number here is debatable, I am hoping for just that debate.

<SNIP 685 WORDS>

....1.5 million trips times $68 a trip means $102 million for benefits minus operating costs. Annual capital costs came in $648 million, more than six times that amount. If you think that the right number is three million trips, then the benefits rise to $200 million, and the ratio between the per rider net benefits and costs drops to one-to-three. This is the cruel arithmetic faced by people, like myself, who would love to be pro-rail. One hint for train lovers who would like to make this comparison look better: make a compelling case that the interest rate should be much lower, as nothing else makes nearly as much difference. Also keep in mind that I haven’t brought in the environment or congestion...."

Edward L. Glaeser is an economics professor at Harvard.

A couple of things you are NOT factoring in. STRESS REDUCTION of people who do not like to deal with PARKING LOT highways. (even here in SW Idaho we have ONE major highway I-84 and when it gets full up it is NOT a free flowing affair) Another thing you are NOT factoring in is increased PRODUCTIVITY of people arriving to work on time. (once again I-84 is the ONLY E-W highway so it is ONE bad wreck from being COMPLETELY shut down) now I know most major areas would have alternate routes but I think you can see my point. We are also affected here by WEATHER conditions that a rail would not be.


Just a few thoughts for you.

 

[Oldandtired]

Not me. I don't want a job. Don't confuse me with those other guys. I'm retired and enjoying every minute of it...

Sorry...Just needed to correct your grammer.
It is NOT "I don't want a job"
Instead, it is...."I aint gonna get me no job"

 

[Samson]

First these companies that make things such as the F-22 are already private companies who happen to have a defense division. Take Boeing for example, Boeing makes commerical aircraft and the commerical aircraft market is way down at the moment due to world economic conditions and has already led to layoffs in that sector. Now when the Govt. first says. we plan to stimulate the economy and create jobs then at the same time cancel a program like the F-22 they are NOT laying off Govt. workers they are laying of in many cases Union and non Union private industry workers who supply commercial and defense needs for these companies. Take NASA for example, when you set out based on what IMHO is flawed logic to cancel the Constellation program it effects not only those working in commercial space flight industry but all the associated industries that support it. To just make the statement, well lets just convert them to non-defense, does not take into consideration that a lot of these companies are ALREADY engaged in non-defense work. This notion that "green jobs" will save us is nonsense especially when you consider that EVERY single industry that supports alternative energy from batteries to solar to wind is largely produced offshore and will continue to be produced there.

I do find it interesting that you support NASA which doesn't have much of a return on investment. I WHOLE HEARTEDLY support Nasa but YOUR position just seems curious to me.

I find in interesting that you use the term "Return On Investment" to describe the US Government.

US Government, like a Corporation, sells "shares" in itself (government bonds).

But unlike a corporation, these do not pay dividends (periodic portion of the profit), because as a Government, it's not really suppose to focus on making any "profit."

Also, unlike a corporation, these bonds cannot be sold at some future market price that will hopefully be higher than the price at which they were bought because the company is growing in profitability.

So as you see, there is really no incentive for government to become more productive, or produce any Return on Investment.

But what makes people buy bonds?

Because, despite whatever happens short of the government failing, the BOND will produce a Return on Investment.

Where does this come from????

The question becomes even more interesting when we consider that not only does the government make no profit with which to pay the bond, but they have "deficite spending," which, if it were a corporation, would cause it to go out of business.

 

[Navy1960]

How about we take that effort we would have put into the F-22's and put into some real space program action?

We found water on the moon, that presents so much of an opportunity.

In fact the F-22 is a very much needed aircraft, want to know why? the F-15 Eagle was developed in the 1970's, as was the F-16, and the F-18. All of which are currently front line aircraft and all of which as they age become less and less combat effective. The F-35 which is meant to replace all of them was developed as a compliment to the F-22 not as a stand-alone aircraft as it is now being sold. Want to know what the RAAF had to say a few years ago when the USAF conducted a combat sim. with the F-35 against 4th gen. Russian SU-27's the exact comment was " The F-35 was clubbed like a baby seal in all envelopes by the Russian aircraft" So yes, the F-22 is a very much needed aircraft and as for NASA I could not agree more and in terms of it's budget vs. the DoD's we can do both. One other thing worth noting, had the Govt. been smart in the way it purchased and managed programs we would not be having this discussion, look at how much money the Govt. spent digging a big hole in the ground in Nv. for nothing, more than enough to fund both these much needed programs.

 

[rdean]

We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy, often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion, according to a 2008 study by Amtrak&#8217;s inspector general. Rail ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.

High Speed Rail Going Nowhere Fast - CBS News

8 billion for this fallacy known as high speed rail is meaningless and what it will create is a new program that is totally dependant on the Govt. for it's existance. If you wish to have high speed rail like Europe then you will have to fund it like them as well. As for obsolete weapons systems, the F-22 is the ONLY 5th generation fighter aircraft in active duty service. In fact if it were so obsolete then why would China be rapidly developing a counter to it, and Russia as well?

MOSCOW - Russia on Jan. 29 unveiled a new fighter aircraft touted as a rival of the U.S. F-22 stealth jet and developed amid the highest secrecy as part of a plan to modernize the armed forces.
Russia Unveils Fighter Seen as Rival to F-22 - Defense News

Must be a Republican. They are good at leaving out facts and working to stoke up the fear.

=======================

But analysts have denied the jet is a leap forward.

"It's just a prototype lacking new engines and a new radar," military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told the Associated Press news agency.

Originally scheduled for 2007, the T-50's maiden flight was repeatedly postponed because of technical problems.

Observers of Russia's recent military modernisation drive say it has been plagued by delays and quality problems.

BBC News - Russia unveils its first stealth fighter jet

=======================

So the Republican answer is "We have good jets and dirt roads and that keeps us safe"?

So sick of them and their "fear". Do you know how much energy it takes to be afraid all the time?

 

[uscitizen]

But the rest of the world is out to get us because we are so wonderful and #1 in everything.

 

[RodISHI]

WASHINGTON — Lockheed Martin Corp. is lobbying the Obama administration to buy additional F-22 fighter jets by arguing that continued production of the plane would preserve nearly 100,000 jobs across the country, including 19,500 in California.

Lockheed lobbies for F-22 production on job grounds - Los Angeles Times

The end of the space shuttle program comes amid an economic crisis in Florida which was badly hit by a turn down in the real estate market. Some 7,000 space industry workers will lose their jobs by the time the shuttle program ends, which potentially will be a disaster for Brevard County.
Orlando Sentinel - The Write Stuff – Space shuttle program layoffs continue: Boeing sheds 36 jobs

Kissell will surely reap rewards in his home state. Of the 44 textile plants closed in the country in the past year, 14 were in North Carolina, where 10,300 people lost their jobs.

How does the amendment get around World Trade Organization rules?

It turns out, under international trade obligations there is an exemption for national security agency procurement requirements.

“We’ve been working since the creation of the DHS to extend that procurement code,” said Auggie Tantillo, executive director of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition (AMTAC). “Obviously, the Kissell legislation made that a reality.”
Textiles laud ‘made in USA’ law


So it's about jobs. well as a suggestion why not start with DoD and perhaps as the last article indicates have some of our tax money spent on the production of such items as uniforms that are now mostly made in China and Mexico here in this nation, or perhaps right down to the new Presidential helicopter made in Italy. The President recently went to Tampa and made a speech on the benefits of high speed rail and on the same day the White House informed NASA that the Constellation program was done and that NASA needs to concentrate on scientific missions such as climate change. The 8 billion that will go to high speed rail is a mere drop in the bucket for what the real costs will eventually be and while many see this as some nirvana we do have a little experience in Govt. passanger rail and thats called Amtrak. Frankly as these jobs in the defense and technology sector bleed out as a result of outsourcing and cuts and just plain bad policy , I submit had the President really wanted to concentrate on jobs then he would not on the one hand talk about jobs and on the other sit by and let thousands lose them. The one thing that is striking in the last article is just how much the DoD spends on textiles anually and what that number means in jobs, which was around 200, 000. In short rather than concentrate on things such as high speed rail and marsh mice, perhaps its better if the Govt. learns to spend its money a little more wisely to begin with and make decisions that put this nation as it's first priority.

So who is going to ride this rail, chinese garment manufacturer workers or italian helicopter company ceo's?

 

[Samson]

In fact the F-22 is a very much needed aircraft, want to know why? the F-15 Eagle was developed in the 1970's, as was the F-16, and the F-18. All of which are currently front line aircraft and all of which as they age become less and less combat effective.

"Less combat effective against"........what?

Will the F-22 keep a guy named Muhammed with a box of dynamite from wading across the Rio Grande?

 

[Mr Natural]

Not me. I don't want a job. Don't confuse me with those other guys. I'm retired and enjoying every minute of it...

Yup, me too.

 

[Navy1960]

We know this because high-speed rail systems in other nations were not built, and are not operated, anywhere near so cheaply as Obama suggests. In the past decade, Taiwan built a single 215-mile high-speed passenger route for $15 billion. Germany, France, and Italy, often cited as advanced railroad nations, subsidize their rail systems heavily: Between 1995 and 2003, Germany spent $104 billion on subsidies, France spent $75 billion, and Italy spent $64 billion, according to a 2008 study by Amtrak’s inspector general. Rail ridership in Europe far outpaces that in the U.S., but in spite of these huge subsidies, trains have lost a significant portion of their market share to automobiles and planes since 1980.

High Speed Rail Going Nowhere Fast - CBS News

8 billion for this fallacy known as high speed rail is meaningless and what it will create is a new program that is totally dependant on the Govt. for it's existance. If you wish to have high speed rail like Europe then you will have to fund it like them as well. As for obsolete weapons systems, the F-22 is the ONLY 5th generation fighter aircraft in active duty service. In fact if it were so obsolete then why would China be rapidly developing a counter to it, and Russia as well?

MOSCOW - Russia on Jan. 29 unveiled a new fighter aircraft touted as a rival of the U.S. F-22 stealth jet and developed amid the highest secrecy as part of a plan to modernize the armed forces.
Russia Unveils Fighter Seen as Rival to F-22 - Defense News

Must be a Republican. They are good at leaving out facts and working to stoke up the fear.

=======================

But analysts have denied the jet is a leap forward.

"It's just a prototype lacking new engines and a new radar," military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer told the Associated Press news agency.

Originally scheduled for 2007, the T-50's maiden flight was repeatedly postponed because of technical problems.

Observers of Russia's recent military modernisation drive say it has been plagued by delays and quality problems.

BBC News - Russia unveils its first stealth fighter jet

=======================

So the Republican answer is "We have good jets and dirt roads and that keeps us safe"?

So sick of them and their "fear". Do you know how much energy it takes to be afraid all the time?

Has nothing at all to do with fear it's a fact that Russia and China BOTH are developing aircraft that meant to compete with the F-22. If you are afraid of the the fact that this aircraft made it's first flight the other day then that is your issue not mine. The point was, to show that while many think that the F-22 is useless because it is a relic of the Cold War, my post was meant to show that both those nations don't consider the F-22 to be such a relic that they are ignoring it. One other thing I would like to point out as well, all aircraft start out as a proto-type including the YF-22 thus the designation, so dismiss claim that its no big deal because it's proto-type shows a lack of understanding of how aircraft are developed. One other thing you may want to consider here as well, Russia has no where near the military budget we have and to even attempt to build a competetor for the F-22 shows that it is no mere reilc which was the intent of my original post. It was YOU who made the choice to be afriad because if it.

 

[Navy1960]

In fact the F-22 is a very much needed aircraft, want to know why? the F-15 Eagle was developed in the 1970's, as was the F-16, and the F-18. All of which are currently front line aircraft and all of which as they age become less and less combat effective.

"Less combat effective against"........what?

Will the F-22 keep a guy named Muhammed with a box of dynamite from wading across the Rio Grande?

meaning there are tasked with performing specific missions and against specific adversaries, such as the SU-27, SU-35 etc. and the older the get the less effective there are in the performance of these missions. Interesting side note though there can be a case made for several advancements on two of those aircraft that in some cases would be a better fit and cheaper rather than the F-35 or even the F-22. Boeing recently developed the F-15SE or what they call the Silent Eagle which is a stealh aircraft that takes much of the technology from the F-22 and applies it to the F-15 at half the cost. In the case of the F-16 General Dynamics has added "supre cruise" from the F-22 and the AESA radar from the F-35 on an F-16 that it says will out perform the F-35 at half the cost. So there are alternatives in the money saving department and there are ways of getting this technology to the field. As for getting someone across the border, I suggest a C-17 cannot perform that mission as well and the USAF has told congress many times we don't need anymore and yet congress keeps buying them. So perhaps if DoD spent in a more wise manner then the money would be available to actually do something about the guy crossing the border too.

 

[uscitizen]

I hardly think Obama made that decision on his own. I expect he had people that know far more about the military situation than you advising him.
No insult intended, just saying.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I don't believe the folks who want this are aware of the logistical problems involved.

All the Fast trains require special steels, special ways of constructing the roadbed, special ways of laying the track, it would be killer expensive. If we use Taiwan's numbers, which are way to cheap as wages there are way less than ours, it cost 69.7 million dollars per mile. At Taiwan wages. I can't imagine what it would cost translated into US wages, but a billion a mile would still be on the cheap side.

That is just construction. You want to talk operating expenses on top of that?

Europe has huge rail subsidies, plus huge costs to alternative travel. In europe the sell gas by the quart rather than by the gallon, and taxes run up to $3 per quart in much of europe, vs 25 cents per gallon here. And still the Europeans who can, go by auto rather than by high speed train.

High speed rail is a luxury and is cute. I don't see the point.

People here in the US howl when discussing raising the tax on fuel to 50 cents from a quarter. You think folks are going to be happy with $12 a gallon taxes in order to subsidize rail?

 

[RodISHI]

I hardly think Obama made that decision on his own. I expect he had people that know far more about the military situation than you advising him.
No insult intended, just saying.

Insult intended, are you really this stupid in real life?

 

[uscitizen]

I hardly think Obama made that decision on his own. I expect he had people that know far more about the military situation than you advising him.
No insult intended, just saying.

Insult intended, are you really this stupid in real life?

so you cliam to know moare about our military situation, new projects, etc than our military leaders?

Where the WMD's then?